I think avoiding cash is based on people's general tendency to want to control others. Don't want them to do something with their charity that they don't approve of with the money.
Well, yeah. Whats the problem with that line of thought? Would you give charity to a pimp? Why not?
Charity is voluntary, and if someone wants to make sure that someone else eats (by giving food) that's fine. If they want to make sure that someone else eats but does not trust that recipient to buy food, where's the problem?
You heard wrong, because "aid to the government for the people" is radically different from "cash directly to the people".
"Cash directly to the people" frequently doesn't *stay* with the people, and even less frequently does it acutally *go* to the people.
Lets say there's an African state that receives charity (almost all do, but I'm going to go nameless on this): to give the cash directly to people who can spend it the US dollar is used to *buy* cash from the state, at which point the state merely prints worthless local currency and takes the dollars - "money" went to the people but it was the worthless local stuff while the state got the dollars/euros/etc.
Option two: give people actual dollars. They trade it for local currency just so that they can spend it and the state prints extra local currency (thereby devaluing the currency) to swap for dollars - "money" went to the people while the state got the dollars/euros/etc.
Option three: give people actual dollars, and they use it as a currency (no foreign currency conversion) in place of the local worthless currency. The state steps in and confiscates any dollars - "money" went to the people and then went to the state.
I lived in Africa (various parts) for over 40 years. The best country was South Africa. The worst was all of them because they vied for that title and won it in different years. In almost all the African countries (barring three or four) the state is little more than a gang of armed thugs that perform shakedowns on the population.
The west has been pouring aid into Africa for the last 60-odd years with almost no difference being made. At which point do you call it a loss?
You want to know what happens with cash? It gets used to subjugate the population. Countries donate food and medicines because African rulers can't buy guns and landmines with corn and antibiotics.
Who's responsible for all this? By and large it's the African people. The Chinese and Indians came out in droves and made massive investment in factories and industry through the 70s, 80s and 90s. Then the government steps in and nationalises all those industries while the population cheers them on. Then the investment dries up and the factories die out because the production comes to a halt under state management.
The west media is ignoring the real problems because it does not gel with their narrative. For the last eight months in South Africa the ruling party has been in the news because they are attempting to change the constitution to allow them to confiscate farms from white farmers and redistribute that land to black people. The black population is mostly in agreement with this. There is no ambiguity - the South African news sites have been reporting this for eight months (or more).
And yet, the only time the man in the street in the West hears about this is a few weeks ago when the western media jumped on something that Trump said and completely ignored the fact that the ruling party wants to confiscate land from white farmers, with the full approval of the black majority. In ten years when South Africa is starving because the confiscated farms were handed out to people who did not know how to farm, I can guarantee that the West will cry that South Africa is a victim of a colonialist past, and not that the rulers stayed in power by chasing away the food producers.
Go live in Africa for a little while - it's a real eye-opener. All of the following can be found on the first page of a google search for the term +Africa:
Same-sex relationships punishable by death.
Blasphemy illegal and punishable by time in prison (or, in some African countries, whipping)
Science and Tech regarded as an evil of colonialism by *university students*!!! They advocate studying how sangomas and witchcraft work instead (there's a video of this on youtube.
Widespread belief that sex with a toddler will cure aids
Circumcision performed as a tradition in the bush using unsterilised kniv
When I first posted I was turning off updates for Windows 7 Ultimate because of the forced updates, I said I was doing it because other things would be coming down the pike. I was mocked as paranoid right here. I was told I was leaving myself open for system takeover, 'Who wouldn't want the latest protection?", etc, etc.
I have none of the problems incessantly being talked about with 10 and it is I who now mock.
You mean "we who now mock", because I got into your unpatched system ages ago.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
These things are always abused. Always.
Weren't you the one always in favour of giving the state more power? More power to discriminate on basis of both skin colour and gender?
You're right (now) that these things will always be abused, but you know what - we told you so. Honestly, you're in agreement only if the right sort of discrimination occurs, so this problem is because of people like you. Had you been egalitarian from the get go the state would have less power to enforce discrimination.
Eventually perhaps? Obviously there's a lot of momentum in C++ right now, and it won't fade to obscurity any faster then C.
C++ doesn't have a flagship project that is currently one of the most important and foundational projects of the software world like C does (Linux kernel), which means it can easily fade into obscurity and be relegated to niche projects. The ongoing work on the Linux kernel ensures that C isn't going to fade until the kernel code is replaced with something else.
It's really not the most important thing about Rust. Though in fairness it seems that so many C hackers are so misinformed about their own language and still struggling that it apparently matters.
That's irrelevant. Rust isn't going to replace C. It's converting C++ devs not C devs. All the C devs who wanted a new language moved to C++. Since C++ has all the same faults of C while adding a few more, those same devs will move to Rust.
The rust proponents (popping up everywhere to announce what they've written) who've written new packages in Rust were not C devs, they were C++ devs. C isn't going anywhere, but C++ is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
The human body can make its own energy, by breaking down those useful things it previously built - things like your eyes, muscles, and tendons and especially your brain. That's called starvation, which is the one and only result of permanent "calorie reduction" plans.
It's only going to do that after it's gotten all the energy it can from fat. If you've got no fat then you don't have to have a deficit.
It's definitely not enough and you fail to understand metabolism. As soon as you reduce your diet 100 calories, your body will adjust it's processes and you will not lose weight.
After your body adjusts then you no longer have a deficit. OP was right - you need to maintain the deficit as your metabolism changes, which means consuming fewer calories as you lose weight. I see very few people doing that.
If you're already overeating then your metabolism is already incorrect; once you go into a calorie deficit your metabolism changes to accommodate that deficit, which means that you then need to eat even less. At some point your metabolism can't be changed anymore and then you simply maintain the calorie intake you have at that particular point.
There are rare conditions (perhaps 1 in a thousand, or less) that can cause you to starve to death while being obese; the majority of people are simply eating too much.
Whether the land is public or not is irrelevant if the party bringing action has standing for trespass.
You cannot, by definition, be trespassing in a public space.
Do you know what this means:
when the courts find that the parties seeking relief doesn't have standing
???
If a party has standing to bring action for trespass, then no - you don't have a right to be there.
Because you have the right to be there.
You might be a noise nuisance or breaching the peace or 101 other things but you are not trespassing merely by being there.
Depending on how the owner of the land (the state) has permitted someone to use it, you might in fact be trespassing just by being there. it being a public area doesn't mean that the state didn't grant exclusive access to someone (for example, for mineral extraction).
A protest is basically a DoS attack on the real world. Marching down a street blocks it for other users. It creates noise that is difficult to ignore.
You aren't allowed to block property owners from their property under the guise of protesting.
If you are upset about that then you basically oppose all protesting, which is a fundamental and important part of democracy.
You're free to protest, that doesn't mean that other people have to give you a platform. Remember your stance when it was social media blocking users? You felt that those people were free to speak, but google, et al were not obligated to give them a platform.
Why is it only now that your stance has changed into thinking that property owners are obligated to give protestors a platform?
You have a citation for the fracking not being on public land?
It's in the article - the injunctions being sought are not to "ban protests". The injunctions specifically mention
trespass
. Whether the land is public or not is irrelevant if the party bringing action has standing for trespass.
Tell you what, come back and crow a little when the courts find that the parties seeking relief doesn't have standing. Then we can say that the protestors have some sort of legal right to be there, until then there is someone complaining to the courts about trespassers.
Sometimes I have to wonder if you're for real or not. What you wrote is so disingenuous I wonder if you have ever actually been part of a legal protest.
Let's fix your comment to make it accurate, shall we?
It's the usual horseshit from Vice.
Basically the fracking companies, who to be fair are asshats, have been trying to get injunctions to stop trespassers. As part of this effort they have been mining the trespassers' social media accounts. Their claim is that most of the people trespassing are useful idiots who were duped into trespassing on Facebook or something equally incoherent and ridiculous.
To establish this claim they have been submitting evidence of people bringing their children to the (non-violent, family friendly) trespassing.
I think the point that Vice is trying to make is that it's both a technique favoured by property owners (quote mining, forcing the defendant to provide context and justification for posts that are edited and presented in isolation) and an attempt to provide evidence of trespassing to the famously non-tech-savvy courts. But Vice's journalism is so poor it's hard to tell, especially the ones at Motherboard.
You're so unused to unbiased statements that you have no idea what they look like anymore.
Your political movement has convenient labels to slap on anybody you disagree with. It's plain and obvious that you are a hard core 'mens rights' ideologue by the little dogwhistles you've been dropping. Most everybody else in this discussion I would say has credibility.
Correct. Some drone with skill in front of a webcam can stream content of himself playing a game, and he is considered a 'partner' of the game company.
Yes, the game companies consider it lucrative to work with these parasites. How disappointing.
Apparently he was more valuable to them than their diversity narrator. Who do you blame for that? His skills were more valued than hers.
That she is worth less than she and you thought she was is only a surprise to the productive members of society.
In fact, I encourage you to continue attempts to end discussions via shaming
Though it appears that you are the one who shamed AmiMojo as a self-loathing male with no self-respect
Well, he did start with "misogynists", or did you not read that far upthread? He tried to shutdown the argument via shaming language and I just responded in kind.
When someone attempts to shame someone else, you get all offended if the target defends themselves
Why are you so invested in ensuring that no one should respond in kind? You don't get the moral high ground when you start the mud-slinging.
The person she attacked is a content contributor to the game in question, and has such is considered a business partner by the company.
This might be a bit of an aside, but it's a sad state of affairs that a parasite like a streamer is now considered a 'business partner' with the gaming company. A 'golden customer' who 'the staff' should not be allowed to displease.
That is a sad state of affairs, but in this case the person in question is not a golden customer but a content producer *for* the company. He isn't considered a customer, but is officially a partner.
If you attacked your companies business partners on a public media, regardless of whether it was on company time or not, you'd be out on your ass as well.
Disappointed you turned out to be a GamerGate apologist. Not interested in continuing this discussion if you are sticking to that narrative.
Good luck trying to continue using "gamergate" as a shaming term. When the game journos had to walk back from their "Gamers are dead" articles their (and your) opinions on gamergaters became irrelevant.
In fact, I encourage you to continue attempts to end discussions via shaming: it has started to backfire horribly but the demographic who uses shaming terms are apparently too slow to notice.
Did she, or anyone for that matter, say "all gamers are dead"?
Not just once, but repeatedly. That's what started gamergate. There was no outcry over harassment until the media stupidly started with the their "gamers are dead" articles.
You may be a self-loathing male with no self-respect, bu mose of us (men and women) aren't, hence the shaming language only works in your head.
I'm saying if you're going to be a Nazi, don't be surprised when people fight you. You want to pretend like GamerGate wasn't about silencing women developers and keeping women out of gaming but whine about how those mean women said mean things about you like it fell out of the sky from nowhere.
So stop being a disingenuous butthurt snowflake.
You think all black people are nazis, or just me?
By now it's obvious to all but the most ideologically cemented that gamergate wasn't about silencing women devs.
This article is a good example - the woman in question launched an unprovoked sexist attack on a male, but it's the men who are snowflakes?
Just because you are a self-loathing male don't go around hurling insults at the non-self-loathers.
So, how long have you been a GamerGater? Cause your argument right now is sounding like a Nazi complaining about the Jews not going into the ovens willingly.
Are you saying that people aren't allowed to respond when someone attacks them? That's a pretty regressive view.
No she was harassed by misogynists from 4chan because she was a female game dev.
How do you know that was why she was harassed? When someone attacks a collective with things like "All gamers are dead" why are they surprised when elements of the collective respond in kind?
You can spew all the bile you want but then don't expect people to take you seriously when the target of your bile responds.
Some of the stuff in C++ that is fairly horrible has been there forever (i.e. not recently added). For example our code review recently missed a bug in snippet that basically had a "errorcode = function (value);" because value was passed by reference. At the point of the call there is no indication that function can change the value.
const qualifier exists specifically to avoid exactly these types of problems. Why not use it instead of guessing?
Maybe because the reviewers didn't write the code, and the diff doesn't automatically show what the function declarations were in the header that wasn't modified.
The local variable "value" wasn't declared const because it was changed in the local scope.
Had this been written in C the call "errorcode = function (&value);" would have been a clear giveaway.
Unless value was a pointer then it too would be function(value)
Except that then you could see that it was a pointer just by looking at the local scope. The way it was meant that the library headers had to be examined to check whether function() was capable of changing value or not.
It appears you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
I think avoiding cash is based on people's general tendency to want to control others. Don't want them to do something with their charity that they don't approve of with the money.
Well, yeah. Whats the problem with that line of thought? Would you give charity to a pimp? Why not?
Charity is voluntary, and if someone wants to make sure that someone else eats (by giving food) that's fine. If they want to make sure that someone else eats but does not trust that recipient to buy food, where's the problem?
You heard wrong, because "aid to the government for the people" is radically different from "cash directly to the people".
"Cash directly to the people" frequently doesn't *stay* with the people, and even less frequently does it acutally *go* to the people.
Lets say there's an African state that receives charity (almost all do, but I'm going to go nameless on this): to give the cash directly to people who can spend it the US dollar is used to *buy* cash from the state, at which point the state merely prints worthless local currency and takes the dollars - "money" went to the people but it was the worthless local stuff while the state got the dollars/euros/etc.
Option two: give people actual dollars. They trade it for local currency just so that they can spend it and the state prints extra local currency (thereby devaluing the currency) to swap for dollars - "money" went to the people while the state got the dollars/euros/etc.
Option three: give people actual dollars, and they use it as a currency (no foreign currency conversion) in place of the local worthless currency. The state steps in and confiscates any dollars - "money" went to the people and then went to the state.
I lived in Africa (various parts) for over 40 years. The best country was South Africa. The worst was all of them because they vied for that title and won it in different years. In almost all the African countries (barring three or four) the state is little more than a gang of armed thugs that perform shakedowns on the population.
The west has been pouring aid into Africa for the last 60-odd years with almost no difference being made. At which point do you call it a loss?
You want to know what happens with cash? It gets used to subjugate the population. Countries donate food and medicines because African rulers can't buy guns and landmines with corn and antibiotics.
Who's responsible for all this? By and large it's the African people. The Chinese and Indians came out in droves and made massive investment in factories and industry through the 70s, 80s and 90s. Then the government steps in and nationalises all those industries while the population cheers them on. Then the investment dries up and the factories die out because the production comes to a halt under state management.
The west media is ignoring the real problems because it does not gel with their narrative. For the last eight months in South Africa the ruling party has been in the news because they are attempting to change the constitution to allow them to confiscate farms from white farmers and redistribute that land to black people. The black population is mostly in agreement with this. There is no ambiguity - the South African news sites have been reporting this for eight months (or more).
And yet, the only time the man in the street in the West hears about this is a few weeks ago when the western media jumped on something that Trump said and completely ignored the fact that the ruling party wants to confiscate land from white farmers, with the full approval of the black majority. In ten years when South Africa is starving because the confiscated farms were handed out to people who did not know how to farm, I can guarantee that the West will cry that South Africa is a victim of a colonialist past, and not that the rulers stayed in power by chasing away the food producers.
Go live in Africa for a little while - it's a real eye-opener. All of the following can be found on the first page of a google search for the term +Africa:
Same-sex relationships punishable by death.
Blasphemy illegal and punishable by time in prison (or, in some African countries, whipping)
Science and Tech regarded as an evil of colonialism by *university students*!!! They advocate studying how sangomas and witchcraft work instead (there's a video of this on youtube.
Widespread belief that sex with a toddler will cure aids
Circumcision performed as a tradition in the bush using unsterilised kniv
When I first posted I was turning off updates for Windows 7 Ultimate because of the forced updates, I said I was doing it because other things would be coming down the pike. I was mocked as paranoid right here. I was told I was leaving myself open for system takeover, 'Who wouldn't want the latest protection?", etc, etc.
I have none of the problems incessantly being talked about with 10 and it is I who now mock.
You mean "we who now mock", because I got into your unpatched system ages ago.
Thanks, btw.
Again I'm not trying to post this as pro or con, just the level of understand of this space isn't very high on slashdot
I think the problem is that we understand it all too well.
All scammers get irritated when the mark recognises the scam.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
These things are always abused. Always.
Weren't you the one always in favour of giving the state more power? More power to discriminate on basis of both skin colour and gender?
You're right (now) that these things will always be abused, but you know what - we told you so. Honestly, you're in agreement only if the right sort of discrimination occurs, so this problem is because of people like you. Had you been egalitarian from the get go the state would have less power to enforce discrimination.
Well Done!
but C++ is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
Eventually perhaps? Obviously there's a lot of momentum in C++ right now, and it won't fade to obscurity any faster then C.
C++ doesn't have a flagship project that is currently one of the most important and foundational projects of the software world like C does (Linux kernel), which means it can easily fade into obscurity and be relegated to niche projects. The ongoing work on the Linux kernel ensures that C isn't going to fade until the kernel code is replaced with something else.
It's really not the most important thing about Rust. Though in fairness it seems that so many C hackers are so misinformed about their own language and still struggling that it apparently matters.
That's irrelevant. Rust isn't going to replace C. It's converting C++ devs not C devs. All the C devs who wanted a new language moved to C++. Since C++ has all the same faults of C while adding a few more, those same devs will move to Rust.
The rust proponents (popping up everywhere to announce what they've written) who've written new packages in Rust were not C devs, they were C++ devs. C isn't going anywhere, but C++ is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
The human body can make its own energy, by breaking down those useful things it previously built - things like your eyes, muscles, and tendons and especially your brain. That's called starvation, which is the one and only result of permanent "calorie reduction" plans.
It's only going to do that after it's gotten all the energy it can from fat. If you've got no fat then you don't have to have a deficit.
It's definitely not enough and you fail to understand metabolism. As soon as you reduce your diet 100 calories, your body will adjust it's processes and you will not lose weight.
After your body adjusts then you no longer have a deficit. OP was right - you need to maintain the deficit as your metabolism changes, which means consuming fewer calories as you lose weight. I see very few people doing that.
If you're already overeating then your metabolism is already incorrect; once you go into a calorie deficit your metabolism changes to accommodate that deficit, which means that you then need to eat even less. At some point your metabolism can't be changed anymore and then you simply maintain the calorie intake you have at that particular point.
There are rare conditions (perhaps 1 in a thousand, or less) that can cause you to starve to death while being obese; the majority of people are simply eating too much.
You cannot, by definition, be trespassing in a public space.
Do you know what this means:
when the courts find that the parties seeking relief doesn't have standing
??? If a party has standing to bring action for trespass, then no - you don't have a right to be there.
Because you have the right to be there.
You might be a noise nuisance or breaching the peace or 101 other things but you are not trespassing merely by being there.
Depending on how the owner of the land (the state) has permitted someone to use it, you might in fact be trespassing just by being there. it being a public area doesn't mean that the state didn't grant exclusive access to someone (for example, for mineral extraction).
A protest is basically a DoS attack on the real world. Marching down a street blocks it for other users. It creates noise that is difficult to ignore.
You aren't allowed to block property owners from their property under the guise of protesting.
If you are upset about that then you basically oppose all protesting, which is a fundamental and important part of democracy.
You're free to protest, that doesn't mean that other people have to give you a platform. Remember your stance when it was social media blocking users? You felt that those people were free to speak, but google, et al were not obligated to give them a platform.
Why is it only now that your stance has changed into thinking that property owners are obligated to give protestors a platform?
You have a citation for the fracking not being on public land?
It's in the article - the injunctions being sought are not to "ban protests". The injunctions specifically mention
trespass
. Whether the land is public or not is irrelevant if the party bringing action has standing for trespass.
Tell you what, come back and crow a little when the courts find that the parties seeking relief doesn't have standing. Then we can say that the protestors have some sort of legal right to be there, until then there is someone complaining to the courts about trespassers.
Sometimes I have to wonder if you're for real or not. What you wrote is so disingenuous I wonder if you have ever actually been part of a legal protest.
Let's fix your comment to make it accurate, shall we?
It's the usual horseshit from Vice.
Basically the fracking companies, who to be fair are asshats, have been trying to get injunctions to stop trespassers. As part of this effort they have been mining the trespassers' social media accounts. Their claim is that most of the people trespassing are useful idiots who were duped into trespassing on Facebook or something equally incoherent and ridiculous.
To establish this claim they have been submitting evidence of people bringing their children to the (non-violent, family friendly) trespassing.
I think the point that Vice is trying to make is that it's both a technique favoured by property owners (quote mining, forcing the defendant to provide context and justification for posts that are edited and presented in isolation) and an attempt to provide evidence of trespassing to the famously non-tech-savvy courts. But Vice's journalism is so poor it's hard to tell, especially the ones at Motherboard.
You're so unused to unbiased statements that you have no idea what they look like anymore.
If you are arguing that iPhones aren't functional you are crazy.
We aren't arguing that :-/ We're arguing that phones for half the price of the iPhone has more functionality.
Your political movement has convenient labels to slap on anybody you disagree with. It's plain and obvious that you are a hard core 'mens rights' ideologue by the little dogwhistles you've been dropping. Most everybody else in this discussion I would say has credibility.
More shaming language? Did it work before?
Correct. Some drone with skill in front of a webcam can stream content of himself playing a game, and he is considered a 'partner' of the game company.
Yes, the game companies consider it lucrative to work with these parasites. How disappointing.
Apparently he was more valuable to them than their diversity narrator. Who do you blame for that? His skills were more valued than hers.
That she is worth less than she and you thought she was is only a surprise to the productive members of society.
Just because you are a self-loathing male don't go around hurling insults at the non-self-loathers.
Righteous! Wave that dick around, guy!
I'm not the one with such a fragile ego that it breaks on behalf of other people. IOW, you're a good White Knight.
In fact, I encourage you to continue attempts to end discussions via shaming
Though it appears that you are the one who shamed AmiMojo as a self-loathing male with no self-respect
Well, he did start with "misogynists", or did you not read that far upthread? He tried to shutdown the argument via shaming language and I just responded in kind.
When someone attempts to shame someone else, you get all offended if the target defends themselves
Why are you so invested in ensuring that no one should respond in kind? You don't get the moral high ground when you start the mud-slinging.
The person she attacked is a content contributor to the game in question, and has such is considered a business partner by the company.
This might be a bit of an aside, but it's a sad state of affairs that a parasite like a streamer is now considered a 'business partner' with the gaming company. A 'golden customer' who 'the staff' should not be allowed to displease.
That is a sad state of affairs, but in this case the person in question is not a golden customer but a content producer *for* the company. He isn't considered a customer, but is officially a partner.
If you attacked your companies business partners on a public media, regardless of whether it was on company time or not, you'd be out on your ass as well.
Sigh.
Disappointed you turned out to be a GamerGate apologist. Not interested in continuing this discussion if you are sticking to that narrative.
Good luck trying to continue using "gamergate" as a shaming term. When the game journos had to walk back from their "Gamers are dead" articles their (and your) opinions on gamergaters became irrelevant.
In fact, I encourage you to continue attempts to end discussions via shaming: it has started to backfire horribly but the demographic who uses shaming terms are apparently too slow to notice.
Did she, or anyone for that matter, say "all gamers are dead"?
Not just once, but repeatedly. That's what started gamergate. There was no outcry over harassment until the media stupidly started with the their "gamers are dead" articles.
You may be a self-loathing male with no self-respect, bu mose of us (men and women) aren't, hence the shaming language only works in your head.
I'm saying if you're going to be a Nazi, don't be surprised when people fight you. You want to pretend like GamerGate wasn't about silencing women developers and keeping women out of gaming but whine about how those mean women said mean things about you like it fell out of the sky from nowhere.
So stop being a disingenuous butthurt snowflake.
You think all black people are nazis, or just me?
By now it's obvious to all but the most ideologically cemented that gamergate wasn't about silencing women devs.
This article is a good example - the woman in question launched an unprovoked sexist attack on a male, but it's the men who are snowflakes?
Just because you are a self-loathing male don't go around hurling insults at the non-self-loathers.
So, how long have you been a GamerGater? Cause your argument right now is sounding like a Nazi complaining about the Jews not going into the ovens willingly.
Are you saying that people aren't allowed to respond when someone attacks them? That's a pretty regressive view.
No she was harassed by misogynists from 4chan because she was a female game dev.
How do you know that was why she was harassed? When someone attacks a collective with things like "All gamers are dead" why are they surprised when elements of the collective respond in kind?
You can spew all the bile you want but then don't expect people to take you seriously when the target of your bile responds.
Some of the stuff in C++ that is fairly horrible has been there forever (i.e. not recently added). For example our code review recently missed a bug in snippet that basically had a "errorcode = function (value);" because value was passed by reference. At the point of the call there is no indication that function can change the value.
const qualifier exists specifically to avoid exactly these types of problems. Why not use it instead of guessing?
Maybe because the reviewers didn't write the code, and the diff doesn't automatically show what the function declarations were in the header that wasn't modified. The local variable "value" wasn't declared const because it was changed in the local scope.
Had this been written in C the call "errorcode = function (&value);" would have been a clear giveaway.
Unless value was a pointer then it too would be function(value)
Except that then you could see that it was a pointer just by looking at the local scope. The way it was meant that the library headers had to be examined to check whether function() was capable of changing value or not.
It appears you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.